Three Way Trade Dispute

Q:  Our ESPN league recently had a trade made in which I feel as a 3rd party (Team C) I was wronged. I’m seeking damages. Here is the scenario:

Team A traded Nate Burleson, Sea WR to Team B
Team B traded Chris Chambers, SD WR to Team A
Team B traded Warrick Dunn, Atl RB to Team A
Team B traded Matt Schaub, Hou QB to Team A
This trade was highly scrutinized by the league members partly because Team A is undefeated and it seemed insane to make a trade that makes Team A better and partly because many felt it was lopsided.  In the middle of all the scrutiny Team C put together an offer to Team B.

Team C trade Antwaan Randle El, Was WR to Team B
Team B trade Chris Chambers, SD WR to Team C
Team B responded over email “Let’s do it”.  Team A set up the trade proposal on ESPN.  The trade was not accepted by Team B and after several emails and a voicemail the trade expired and the original trade was completed between Team A and Team B.

I feel a reasonable offer was made and the offer legally accepted in writing.  Please make a ruling on this matter including damages if any. I thank you in advance for your help in this difficult time.

A:  Hi Ross.  If this was a legal matter, you’d have sufficient proof that your trade (Chambers for Randle El) was accepted and that should be binding.

Unfortunately, in matters of fantasy football its a better philosophy to not consider a trade final until its been officially offered, accepted and approved through your league website.  By those standards, the first trade should be that one that is honored.  However, the first trade is clearly unfair with Chamber (38 recs, 509 yds, 1 TD) and Burleson (24 recs, 307 yds, 3 TDs) more or less of equal value.  Throw in Schaub and Dunn and this trade should be vetoed on the grounds of it being incredible lopsided.

We recommend vetoing the original trade but not forcing through the second trade.  It should be a clean slate and if team B decides to accept your offer or another legitimate offer going forward so be it.